I'm saying... if it's just them playing this, but naked? Probably boring.

...if it's just a 30 second introduction to something more, then things could get... interesting?

Also, I think this kind of discussion is probably inappropriate for RHDN and most likely insensitive to other forum members. So hey, let's talk about how this could be the beginning of true virtual reality. Like... A whole room setup for this... Kinda like in this episode of Bravest Warriors... I mean, how cool would that be, eh? Except for the whole your friends invading your potty time...

Apparently, this is just part of some arcade game called eSports Ground, which was shown off at this year's JAEPO. Rather than using a nub to control your paddle, you literally move your body around to play.

One of the commenters said, "It'll be nice when this concept goes fully 3D with holographic projection technology." This comment got me thinking about the Oculus Rift... Its promise was real VR, and yet, I think that with this eSports Ground thing, we may be on the first steps to getting true VR...

So, what do you guys think?

(If I could link to just the video, I would... but unfortunately, it's not a Youtube or other third party video)

I'm with Garoth on this one. The next video game crash is right around the corner, I can just fucking feel it.

Seeing you say this, I started wondering: Is it the same in Japan? I know that portables are more popular in Japan, but I've also read that PC games don't sell well (and is stereotyped as being for MMOs and erotic games). What about the smartphone market?

About an hour ago, I tried to dig the source up (it was an online source), but all I could find were stupid things about Final Fantasy VII remakes. So, if we consider the "no source code" bit as mere rumor, know that it is completely and perfectly possible for it to happen. I have worked in two companies already where I have asked for source code to fix their software and they stare at me with blank eyes wondering whatever am I talking about (and when I talk to someone who does: "Yeah, we don't have that...").

Yeah, MGS3 supposedly does that... But I had already played a few Metal Gear games already to know that killing enemies off isn't all that great of an idea if you're sensitive... (Metal Gear Ghost Babel and Metal Gear Solid tell you how many enemies you've killed up to a certain point).

But they don't make you feel horribly bad about it... It was more of a slap on the wrist kinda thing, like "hey, you killed 100 people! You're a jerk, I hope you're proud of yourself!" and then fireworks and robots. :/ Almost parody-esque...

Metal Gear Solid 3 has a section where it does that. Too bad there's still parts of the game after that where you can kill more soliders... Plus, you don't really feel as bad as you should about it all...

Murder is murder, whether the victim was sentient or not... But regardless, while the enemies in Zelda II are actively hostile towards you (they're minions of Ganon, as you said), there is no sense of "d'oh, this Molblin had a wife and two kids" kind of thing. There's no reason not to kill enemies in Zelda II, even though there are incentives for killing them (XP or blue/red potions).

Demon's/Dark Souls provides choices and introspection on the consequences of your actions where no one course of action was right or wrong (like Ogre Battle) while Zelda II ends statically. On top of that, there is justification for the events. ... Is that it?

If you want it put more simply, the problem with most videogames, modern or not, is that the hero's quest is almost never redemptive.

I suppose... But how do you give a blank slate character like Link flaws for him to have to redeem himself for? Aside from his failures born out of inefficiency (in which the player will simple be like "I don't have the equipment for this!"). I guess you could make the player do something "mean" at the beginning of the game, only for him or her find out about its importance later on, but most likely, the player did that event because the game needed it for you to progress... A lot of games do this already, and I think even that is flawed...

This is why Zelda II, while an excellent illustration of part of the hero's quest, ultimately fails, as the end sees you as a heroic entity with few problems or background. It's a fairy tale ending, which is ultimately shallow. This is how most comics end too (there are exceptions, such as the Watchmen, but they're rare).

I'd say Dark Souls is more like Zelda II than the original Legend of Zelda. Which is generally the problem, as most people don't really get what makes Dark Souls great, just as most people don't get what makes Zelda II great. The games are of different paradigms to be sure, but the nature of the games, adventures into what is essentially an idea of hell, is interesting and taps into something players are interested in. It also relates to ideas of heroic myth and the idea of the journey, which most games attempt to tap into, and while largely superficial in other videogames

As I read these two quotes, I can't help but feel there's a contradiction... You're saying that Dark Souls is great for the same reason that Zelda II is great (the ideas of the heroic myth and journey), but then you do a 180 and then you say Zelda II fails at the end... yet you make it seem as if in Dark Souls, you don't have this "fairy tale" ending. As you may know, I yet haven't played Dark Souls (and still don't own it) and I haven't had time to yet start on Demon's Souls. So maybe my confusion stems from ignorance of these two games' plots?

... Wait... That only served to make me even more confused... Specially since in Zelda II, you're tasked with entering palaces full of enemies (some which are plain MEAN) in order to drop their orb in there... And the palaces do have (simple) tricks in them... And hey! The sixth palace's boss is a dragon...

... Or are you implying that I haven't played Zelda II? Because I have. Multiple times... In both English and Japanese... Multiple times...

Talbain, I don't understand too well. The recent Zelda titles also contain classic "hero myth" tropes... Twilight Princess had Link's constant failures in the beginning... Windwaker had the "heroic trial"... Skyward Sword had Link, hrmm, failing a lot (again). I also don't think Hyrule was ever an analogy to Hell (although the world of LoZ and the Dark World from LTTP probably feel like it).

That might be another thing... I think I spent more time in LoZ's overworld than in its dungeons... But it's not like I don't like dungeons. I like them a lot! Zelda without dungeons isn't Zelda. But dungeon after dungeon felt a bit overwhelming... The overworld is usually like a breather. Plus, it gives you more variation in visuals (don't laugh; it's true! Compare the overworld to a dungeon and you'll see). I'm not asking for a dead overworld, though, such as Ocarina of Time's or anything like Zelda II's... LoZ's overworld was great. A Link to the Past's was great too. Even Link's Awakening and the Oracle games had great and interesting overworlds.

They offered good breaks from the dungeons while not completely becoming soft on you. Skyward Sword was just... "Hey, do this! Hey do that!" and its "overworld" was boring and soulless. People like to complain about Windwaker's overworld, but Skyward Sword's is worse. Much worse.